robotwarsfandomcom-20200215-history
User talk:Garfie489
Welcome to Robot Wars Wiki! Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contribution to the Forum:The old fights now page! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements. :' ' is a great first stop, because you can see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help. :Please ', if you haven't already, and create a user name! It's free, and it'll help you keep track of all your edits. :'Questions? You can ask at the Help desk or on the associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page! :Need help? The Community Portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit. :Bored? The Job List has the list of ongoing projects to help with, as well as pages badly in need of edits. I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! :-- Toon Ganondorf (Talk) 21:53, August 10, 2009 Hall of fame Can you please explain what you're doing? Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:34, August 19, 2017 (UTC) :Removing the supposed "Hall of Fame". Given its an unofficial popularity contest it shouldnt be represented factually. Garfie489 22:40, August 19, 2017 (UTC) ::That is your opinion, but there are several factors. A) The Hall of Fame goes through an official voting process, and it's pretty darn hard to get in. B) It is run by an official combat robot wars website which makes it more credible than "Wikis favourite bots" or something equivalent. The Hall of Fame isn't held out to be the best of all time, it's held out to be exactly what it is. The Academy Awards are popularity contests too, as are Nobel Prizes and Presidential Elections to an extent. They are recognised. This has been on since 2011 and is relevant and interesting to readers. ::In future, if you feel like you want to make a case for something you need to make the case so others can discuss. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 21:52, August 19, 2017 (UTC) :::Not my opinion, fact. A) So? - if i make a "Hall of okishness" and make a public vote where anything that gets 1% of the vote but less than 10% gets in - would the wiki officially recognise that and then give out honours for it? B) Exact same as my first point, theres alot of websites that run fantasy tournaments, the winners arnt given honours here. Garfie489 23:00, August 19, 2017 (UTC) ::::No, your opinion is that it shouldn't be reflected factually. If you want to make the case, do it there and we can discuss it - I'm open to the debate. I only came here because you started removing content without any explanation. That's not how it works - and it shouldn't have taken me blocking your edits for you to explain yourself either. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:40, August 19, 2017 (UTC) :::::I was working my way through, not as if i was ignoring you - i would have read the notification once id finished. Focus on one thing at a time is how i get work done. So where does this discussion start then? Chatting on the discord it seems the general agreement already is "Why is this even a thing", no ones defended it yet so lets get the ball rolling. Garfie489 23:00, August 19, 2017 (UTC) :Sorry TG, but I have to agree with Garfie in that you shouldn't have blocked him when you barely even gave him a change to explain. As he said, he hadn't seen your post, he wasn't ignoring you. CrashBash (talk) 22:49, August 19, 2017 (UTC) ::::::Working through what looks like vandalism to someone who doesn't know better isn't the right way to do things. I'll unblock you now so you can make your case. You also can't count on discord discussions permeating the Wiki user base 100%. I've explained the rules, you can start the discussion and we will start it there. Go to the talk page for the category. I'm open to the idea of you can find examples of other fantasy tournaments from other websites. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 22:51, August 19, 2017 (UTC) :::::::Lets look at this backwards. What makes this particular one the definitive? Basically just age and the fact no one else is really that bothered to do it. Hell, theres alot of profiles on the wiki here that give rankings for their top 5 robots of all time ect. We could probably add them all up and award a "Wiki Hall of Fame" just based purely on that. The Hall your talking about has no official recognition, its not supported by any regulatory body ect - its just a public vote. Itd be the same as having all the FRA Award winners listed on here (which they are not) - even though thats recognised by the governing body. Simple fact is, i could launch a Hall on my team page right now - take some votes, and by your standpoint i could then award honours and write about it on each robots profiles - bit silly aint it? Garfie489 00:05, August 20, 2017 (UTC) :::::::I did not know there was a discord channel. What do I need to search up to find it? [[User:The R A Z 3R|'Ra'z'3'r']](talk) 23:02, August 19, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::Sorry i swear i replied to this ages ago but apparently not. Look on the sidebar in the RW reddit - theres a perminant invitation there (you need to be invited, rather than linked to discord servers). Its open invitation however. Garfie489 (talk) 03:07, January 2, 2018 (UTC) Glitterbomb I'm fully aware of the allegations against the Glitterbomb team regarding the circumstances of their Series 9 withdrawal. However, the fact remains that they have expressly denied those allegations. With that being the case, I will not allow those allegations to be published as fact, no matter how much everyone believes it. There is no benefit to publishing that information, and only negative fallout, especially since we know for a fact that the team read the Wiki. Please do not republish it. I do not want another Gary Cairns out there complaining about how we pick sides. The way it is written is neutral and true in both sides of the story (Glitterbomb was overweight and not reduced to competitive weight until it was too late). We are an encyclopedia, not investigative journalists or a court of law. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 20:09, January 1, 2018 (UTC) :Given what ive written is fact, maybe we shouldnt be quoting a team who have been banned from competitions for lying as fact? The issue we have is this is a common item of trivia thats repeatedly being asked about, and theres nowhere to refer people to and instead we have to explain the whole thing every time. The wiki even goes beyond that in that it actively supports Glitterbombs story, despite it being well known to be false - for example, Glitterbomb was abandoned for several hours of filming time the day before the fight with no work being done on it. Whilst a car breaking down was inconvenient, it wasnt game over as the wiki implies. I can tell you now, if Glitterbomb wants to complain about having facts on a wikipedia - you will have every roboteer in the country behind you. But right now your acting as Glitterbombs personal propaganda assistant. By reporting on their false story whilst denying the facts. This is a wikipedia, where fact is more important than cover ups. Yes quote it as a source, yes state these things happened - but at the end of the day, that broken down car is not what prevented Glitterbomb from entering the arena. Now whats it going to be? - Fact, or propoganda? Chose fact we acknowledge that Glitterbomb has a history of deceit, which has been both acted on and is sourcable. Choose Propoganda, and then people constantly continue to ask what happened to Glitterbomb and why is it not invited to come back to Robot Wars ect anymore. Hell, maybe we should vote on it Garfie489 (talk) 01:17, January 2, 2018 (UTC) ::There's a difference between fact that everyone believes, and fact that you're allowed to publish. This is actually my area of work away from the Wiki, so believe me when I say I know what I'm talking about. I don't believe you're grasping the legal ramifications of publishing such content. Failing an actual substantive finding of dishonesty by an independent body, we're not publishing anything like that. That's why media reports call anyone before conviction an "alleged murderer" or "alleged thief", even if they were caught at the scene of the crime. If you post something that is denied, even if its true, you give the complainant grounds to sue for defamation of character. Would Wikia win? Probably, but not before we were all chastised for letting it happen. I doubt very much "every roboteer in the country" is going to be lining up then, especially if its under the proviso "Robot Wars Wiki challenged for dishonesty". You and I both know that much. I'm not putting our users' reputation and our standing in the Wiki community on the line just because you think its important that Glitterbomb's article is more critical. We weren't inside the team's heads so you don't know for a fact that they chose not to work on Glitterbomb, and we weren't the production team's heads so we don't know that that is the reason they've never come back (all of one series so far, by the way). "A roboteer saw Glitterbomb not being worked on" is not sourcable piece of information. ::This is not a vote or a discussion. This is exercise in my discretion, both as an admin and as a lawyer. Publishing the information gives a small benefit to those interested in the story and can't be bothered looking elsewhere, but opens up a whole lot more trouble. Not worth it, and not happening. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 02:13, January 2, 2018 (UTC) :::Yet you still post the quotes by the Glitterbomb team as if they are fact, despite when you look into the references you realise they have been confirmed to be false by multiple sources. Heres the thing, you as a factual representation need to do 1 of 3 actions. ::: 1) Remove all information provided by Glitterbomb on the basis it has reasonable grounds to be proven false. Given the history, and roboteer statements given in the sources. This is probably the best course of action from your perspective as it has no possible comeback from the Glitterbomb team. ::: 2) Keep the current references, but make note how the references are contradicted by several other roboteers who happened to be present. ::: 3) Offer two versions of events, referencing both which explain from both viewpoints what happened and why it is not agreed upon which version is correct. ::: Heres the thing, you may not be investigative journalists but you still need to vet your sources for accuracy. There is reasonable grounds supported by the majority of primary sources that the story provided by Glitterbomb is false, and thus should not be reported on as fact by a factual article without clarification on the dubious nature of the source. ::: Imagine if tobacco companies threatened to sue any wiki article that said their products give you cancer. Would we then report solely on the pro-tobacco sources or would we not report on it all together? - if you cant give credit to the facts, then maybe its best not to give credit to anything at all? ::: As the information is currently published it is highly mis-informative, thats exactly why they gave you those quotes. Garfie489 (talk) 02:41, January 2, 2018 (UTC) ::::See, this is not the first time you've done this. You come in and do something completely wrong, then when you're called up on it you have a reasonable solution and complain that we didn't do it. I don't have an issue with redacting Glitterbomb's side of the story so that neither side is reflected, but that isn't what you wanted. You wanted us to write the other side of the story, by interviewing multiple sources and coming up with a decision as to which is correct. I have neither the time nor the inclination to do that properly. ::::I have amended the Glitterbomb page. There should be no need for any more complaints that their side is being promoted. Next time, please bring that to my attention, rather than full course correcting and writing the other side. There have been cases in the law where someone was sued for writing an article saying "X company caused the death of workers" when the article itself said they didn't; the publishers were still sued for writing defamatory statements. It is still wrong and we're not doing it. I trust that is now clear. 'Toon Ganondorf (t ' 07:23, January 2, 2018 (UTC) ::::: Lets face it, if i just blindly removed all the quotes from the team we would be having the same argument. I amended the origional article without removing content to be more accurate to real life, if anything it was the smallest changes i could do in correcting the wording on some articles. For example, the tech check and journey to the arena took part on different days. At midnight that night, whilst Glitterbomb was happily sat on its pit bench and the celebrity special was finishing filming there was several robots that had not been tech checked who then went on to fight in Glitterbombs fight..... the car journey had nothing to do with it, and is simply an excuse for the real reason Garfie489 (talk) 12:21, January 2, 2018 (UTC)